Kingsley's 9th

[PThomas]

got a tour by the very friendly staff yesterday -- and what a wonderful looking course it is, with awesome green complexes!! --and would love to hear other's thoughts on the 9th..a hard hole from the short tee, but from the back one, when the long rough is up:  yow!!

maybe it's not that hard, maybe it  just looks too hard for my game!

pt

[Joe Hancock]

Paul,

Hope you enjoyed your tour. Next time you'll have to play it...twice if you have tht time!

The 9th....from the south tees is very hard. However, it will be hard for everyone! Of course, that would assume you're not just out there trying to score.....but to win!

Joe

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have  played the course only twice but have played the ninth at least 20 times from all the different tees. I still don't know where to hit it from the short tee.  Some might think it unfair.  I think it makes birdie difficult and puts a premium on the short game recovery shot.  I love it!

[Ken Fry]

Great, imaginative hole.  I hope it stays as is and doesn't receive any "softening" of the challenge.

Ken

[PThomas]

tour was great Joe; I CAN"T wait to play it

pt

[Paul Richards]

Paul

The ninth at Kingsley is a very special three par indeed.

It has variety and interest galore.

It can play from either set of tees to a magnificent green.

A great par three from the Crystal Downs mode.




 

[Larry_Rodgers]

Be sure to pick the right pinning area and above all DO NOT BE LONG. I was Mr. De Vries playing partner 2 years ago in the member guest and it was one of the most memorable 3 days of playing I can remember. There was a shoot-out on #9 which was great.

[DMoriarty]

My experience at Kingsley Club is limited to only a few rounds played in a single day.  We played No. 9 once from each tee and messed around on the green a bit.   While I very much enjoyed the course, No. 9 was definitely not one of my favorite holes.  

First and most obviously, there absolutely no room for either error or caution.   There is nothing wrong with this per se, but it seems this is a very exposed part of the course and in a high wind the hole might be well beyond the abilities of most players.  This would be more acceptable to me if there was a modest chance at recovery, but there did not seem to be.  

Second, the green just didnt make sense to me.  If I recall correctly it basically has three levels, with the highest level in the middle.   To my eye, this just did not seem to flow into the surrounds like much of the other work at Kingsley.  Especially the left tier just did not quite fit to me.   I dont remember exactly what I didnt like, maybe it was the slight bowl look . . .

As importantly, I am not sure that playing it repeatedly would be as interesting as it could be.   Take the tee shot from the west.  The general contours of the surrounding terrain seem to cry out for a shot that first touches ground on the closest (left) side and then works it way on the ground back down to the right.   This would have been an especially attractive option given the shallowness of the right penninsula portion and the trouble around it.  

I guess this reflects is one of my main complaints about greens (especially small one's) which are separated by sharp ledges into distinct pin areas (some say 'greens within greens.)  The slopes essentially create small individual landing areas that for all practical purposes dont have much to do with each other on the approach.  Pick a level, and try to hit it.  Not as interesting as trying to use the characteristics of one portion of the green to help get the ball to a completely different portion.  

Don't get me wrong, I did not hate the hole.  I liked it, but liked it better from the tees, before I actually got up close to the green.   It is a very attractive hole from either tee . . .

[Joe Hancock]

First and most obviously, there absolutely no room for either error or caution.   There is nothing wrong with this per se, but it seems this is a very exposed part of the course and in a high wind the hole might be well beyond the abilities of most players.  This would be more acceptable to me if there was a modest chance at recovery, but there did not seem to be.  

David,

I don't know how to do italics, but the way I'm reading this paragraph is more like "...beyond the abilities of most players(to make par).

And, "...if there was a modest chance at recovering(par), but..."

Is that the sentiment you're conveying? I'm curious as I try to develop my own sense of what is deemed fair by golfers.

Thanks!, and good picture!

Joe

[DMoriarty]

David,

I don't know how to do italics, but the way I'm reading this paragraph is more like "...beyond the abilities of most players(to make par).

And, "...if there was a modest chance at recovering(par), but..."

Is that the sentiment you're conveying? I'm curious as I try to develop my own sense of what is deemed fair by golfers.

I dont really think of it in terms of trying to find fairness.  More like trying to find that fine line between fun and masochism.  

I wasnt really thinking about the moderate golfer being able to make par, but rather being able to continue to golf his or her ball while having a fighting chance of eventually extricating him/herself from the trouble.  As I recall, the native around that hole is not exactly ameniable to recovery shots of any sort, especially those to a penninsula green well above the golfer which slopes away into further death on three sides.  

Compare it to No. 2, which I thought was a great hole.  I recall I missed short and ran all the way down to the bottom of the huge depression right.  I had little chance of making 3 from there, and I would have done well to even be able to get out, yet I was still engaged and having a blast, and presented with a truly unique and entertaining shot.  It was still fun.  Great fun, no matter what score I eventually ended up with.  

Digging through snake country in the hopes of finding a ball with some semblance of a lie is never any fun.  This is especially so for the less skilled golfer, who has had this experience all too often.  

[Joe Hancock]

David,

I appreciate the detail in your clarification. It really does help to know the thoughts of golfers, as it pertains to where their joy is derived from whilst golfing.

I think you described the 9th at Kingsley very well. In the terms you used, it is a difficult, evening maddening hole. I will say, however, that the setting and golf atmosphere at Kingsley probably warrants, and perhaps justifies a hole like the 9th. To do such a hole on a public course would probably be less wise.

Thanks again for your explanation,

Joe

[DMoriarty]

. . .

I think you described the 9th at Kingsley very well. In the terms you used, it is a difficult, evening maddening hole. I will say, however, that the setting and golf atmosphere at Kingsley probably warrants, and perhaps justifies a hole like the 9th. To do such a hole on a public course would probably be less wise.

My bolds.

Joe, I've never quite understood the 'okay on a private but not on a public' perspective (or visa versa.)  It makes sense to me from a maintenance perspective (green size, for example) but I would think that my critique would apply at least as much or more at a private as it would to a public.

I can imagine a member really liking the challenge of KC 9 for a while-- it is definitely exciting and challenging and thrilling to hit.   But how many times must a member search through the native for his/her ball on a windy day before the member grows tired of this?    I guess it just seems like it might wear down the membershipship after a while.  

I guess one could attempt to justifiy the distinction from a pace of play perspective as well.   A slow up at a public course certainly has the potential to back up a good many more golfers.  But again, I would think that members might grow weary of a feature which slowed down even just their group on a regular basis.  

But then I am not a member anywhere so maybe I am all wet.  

[Jfaspen]

Are there more kingsley pictures like the one displayed in this thread?  If so, could someone point me to the thread with those pics?  I tried a search and failed.

Thanks,

Jeff

[John Kirk]

Jeff,

The club website has great pictures, lots of them

www.kingsleyclub.com

JK

[David Kelly]

For those who haven't played the hole the picture that David posted is not the angle of play.  There are two tee areas and their angles to the hole can be seen in the two mowed walkways in the picture.

[DMoriarty]

Are there more kingsley pictures like the one displayed in this thread?  If so, could someone point me to the thread with those pics?  I tried a search and failed.

A few more of mine from last fall . . .

[DMoriarty]

From what I can piece together, you've got 2 clubs of room for error long.  And one short.  And 2 more in either direction of the center of the green, ie you can hook or slice by a good 20 yards and be OK.  How much more margin for error do you want on a par 3?  What is this -- the world's only 330 yard par 3 or something?  By the nastiness of the dropoff, I"d bet -- having no idea if I'm right -- that this hole isn't even 200 yards from the tips and is probably about 170 max from the regular tees.  C'mon, how much margin for error do you need?  Isn't that plenty of room for error on a 1 shotter?

By that standard, DAveM, you must be ready to blow #15 at Cypress Point up and you probably would want to do the same to #7 and #16!

You greatly overestimate the room for error in nearly every direction.   Those grass hillsides are not made of velcro, one hop and its on to the nasty stuff.  

I'm not ready to blow anything up anywhere.  Go back and read my first couple of posts.  I've hardly damned the hole for all of eternity.  

Why do you like to argue about the ease or difficulty of holes you have never even played?  

[PThomas]

Dave -- I must disagree as well, though I only saw it and didn't play it...a pretty narrow green, slopes all around, some fairly deep bunkers, and long grass when it grows in as the weather turns

I am not saying its unfair, just that it seems to be a difficult hole

[Ken Fry]

Shivas,

From one set of back tees, thw hole plays about 160 yards.  From the other set about 140 yards.

The green is a "boomerang" shape with a few different levels in it.  The drop offs are considerable.  If you are short or off line, play for four.  Up and downs are most difficult.  If you are long and the ball stays on the back hill, your chip will not stay on the green.

If the pins are on the opposite side of the green in relation to the tees you're playing, don't hit at them.

140-160 yards sounds easy enough.  Doesn't play that way....

Ken

[PThomas]

Dave  -- you are correct re two points:  it is a very wide green, and the sand short is the preferred miss, according to my host

[DMoriarty]

Shivas, you are drawing conclusions about how hard a hole you have never played plays, while at the same time lecturing me on not making this a test of who has the better argument?  Hmmm.  Note that this wasnt an argument at all until you joined!  I have an opinion on the hole, so when asked I gave it.  When I was asked to elaborate I did.

A few responses to your argument . . .

-- Higher handicap golfers have much more trouble with depth than distance, so the shallowness hurts more than the apparent width helps.
-- Your miss may end up in the front bunkers.  In contrast, the "hack's" miss will not likely end up in the front bunker, but rather anywhere between the tee and the front bunker.  In the area you describe as "death."  
-- The "chipping area" in back slopes away and right significantly.  Many balls heading toward the "chipping area" will not ultimately end up there but rather in the gunk.  Plus, it isnt really a chipping area at all, at least not in the sense you refer to above.  It is primary rough.  What are all these options one has hitting straight up hill to a shallow green from primary rough.  If it were a tightly mown chipping area or even fairway, not a ball would stay on it ever.  

But let's get back to your initial plea to me regarding not making this about the who can make the better argument.  While you fail to follow it, your advice is solid nonetheless.

I agree, let's not make this about the better argument.   I have had my say.  If you dont believe me then read some of the other comments.  As I read them, even those who very much like the hole recognize that it is pretty unforgiving.  If you dont believe them, then go play the hole.   If you still have a different opinion, then we will have to agree to disagree, at least until and unless I play there again and change my mind.  

[Mike_DeVries]

-- The "chipping area" in back slopes away and right significantly.  Many balls heading toward the "chipping area" will not ultimately end up there but rather in the gunk.  Plus, it isnt really a chipping area at all, at least not in the sense you refer to above.  It is primary rough.  What are all these options one has hitting straight up hill to a shallow green from primary rough.  If it were a tightly mown chipping area or even fairway, not a ball would stay on it ever.  

David and others,

Nice to read the discussion on Kingsley's 9th (great pictures, BTW!).

First, it is a demanding hole that requires a precise short to mid-iron shot.  The west orientation is the shorter of the two and plays about 135, 128, 110, and 75 yards from that side.  My preference is the south orientation (160, 152, and 90) in the spectrum of the entire round since it is the only north playing par 3 on the course and its yardage and shot is different than the others.

The look from each tee is also very different and the south is a bit more intimidating with the deep bowl of native that you play over.  

As to the quote above, the "chipping area" to the east of the green slopes down from the green and then back up as fairway before the maintained rough and then native comes back into play -- a shot must be way offline to find the native and it is rare to see someone that far over there.  Small mishits will roll down and be on the fairway with a multitude of options (frequently the best option is a play completely away from the flag that will come back to it, as a direct shot would require too precise of a strike to stay on the green or give a reasonable chance at recovery).

I feel the best place to miss it is short, even in the deep bunkers, as a play into the bank can be used to slow and retreat the ball towards the pin or another area of the green.  Today, I was plugged in the left bunker and the pin was on the small center plateau (we played the south tees at 152) and my opponent was in the left bowl on the green.  I made a good bunker shot and a downhill 7-footer to halve the hole and front nine -- doesn't get much more fun than that!  

The green allows for very inventive putting to and from each area of the green, so if you are on, you have a very reasonable chance to 2-putt.

The hole demands you make a shot but it isn't impossible to get it there (the maximum carry over the native to the front part of the green from the south back tees is only 140-145 yards and it isn't water, so if you are short, you have a shot or you can re-tee).  

Anyway, my 2 cents.

Mike